Ancient & modern

Spectator, The, Jul 1, 2000 by Jones, Peter

NOW that Roy Hattersley has admitted in the Guardian that he was responsible for the Charleroi football riots during Euro 2000, it is time to ask cui bono?

Cicero tells us this question originated with Lucius Cassius Longinus (tribune of the people, 137 BC). As a presiding judge, Cassius was always instructing the jurors to ask cui bono fuerit lit. `To whom was it for an advantage?', i.e. `Who stood to gain?'

Cicero brought up the principle when he was defending Milo on a charge of murdering Clodius. At a time when the late Republic was sliding into anarchy, Clodius had established a following among Rome's urban population and was able to call mobs on to the streets to advance his political career. Rival politicians did the same, with inevitable consequences. Milo was one such rival, and when the two gangs met Clodius was killed and a murder charge brought against Milo. In Milo's defence, Cicero argues that Clodius had in fact set up an ambush for the express purpose of `wasting' his rival, and asks the jury to consider who stood most to gain from such a clash - cui bono? Obviously, Cicero argues, it was to the advantage of Clodius.

To ask cui bono in the light of Lord Hattersley's shock admission is to see the answer at once. In the eyes of the press, football is sacred. Yobs must not desecrate it by hurling plastic chairs about. So when a few do, the relief among columnists is audible. At last! The pontification can begin! That is why Hattersley started it. It was to his advantage to do so. He's got the column. He's also got the beer-belly, so he looks the part. The only question is does he have the tattoos?

Peter Jones